This is so much of the underlying problem when it comes to kicking the federal monies habit for people. Someone with two kids currently on federal aide while looking for a job must find a job that provides insurance immediately and also pays enough to put food on the table. Getting a job at McDonalds which is usually the bootstrappy comment most GOPers give isn't practical knowing that you get neither insurance nor enough money to pay for living expenses. What you do get is kicked off healthcare. So even if a poor person wanted to bootstrap into McDonalds management there is still a huge gap in healthcare coverage for their children. The only practical option is to remain unemployed or lie on tax returns and I'm sure neither is attractive for most. The GOP is doing absolutely nothing to bolster the poor in the country or to help them climb the ladder to a different class. It's exactly why after three decades of trickle-down economics we have the 2nd highest level of poverty in the industrialized world at almost 25%.

xynix:This is so much of the underlying problem when it comes to kicking the federal monies habit for people. Someone with two kids currently on federal aide while looking for a job must find a job that provides insurance immediately and also pays enough to put food on the table. Getting a job at McDonalds which is usually the bootstrappy comment most GOPers give isn't practical knowing that you get neither insurance nor enough money to pay for living expenses. What you do get is kicked off healthcare. So even if a poor person wanted to bootstrap into McDonalds management there is still a huge gap in healthcare coverage for their children. The only practical option is to remain unemployed or lie on tax returns and I'm sure neither is attractive for most. The GOP is doing absolutely nothing to bolster the poor in the country or to help them climb the ladder to a different class. It's exactly why after three decades of trickle-down economics we have the 2nd highest level of poverty in the industrialized world at almost 25%.

At this point, that trickle would have to turn into a deluge to do any good

As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

I would like to point out that this also includes the disabled. If someone is seriously disabled they can receive Social Security Disability - which is only about $900 a month, sometimes more if the person has worked longer. Once approved for SSD - which can take years, they become eligible for Medicare part A at no cost. This covers hospital costs - some of them. They also become eligible for Medicare part B - which has a monthly co-pay of over a hundred dollars. Then they have to pay more for prescription coverage... not to mention co-pays. If they are lucky they will be able to find a doctor who takes Medicare. There are many costs not covered by Medicare that the disabled person has to pay out of pocket. The people are DISABLED, so chances are they will need more medical care and more prescriptions than the average person.

In some states they can receive help from the government to pay for all or part of the Medicare Part B co-pay and sometimes help with prescriptions. But things have changed as the economic downturn has cut off many benefits at the state level for the disabled. They are left with little to no options for care as pharmacies and doctors refuse to take their insurance because the amount they get reimbursed from the government is too low. Their health suffers and their disabilities become worse.

Social Security has a very stringent acceptance program for those who wish to apply. The "reward" of being accepted is a monthly stipend that places them in the lowest level of poverty and nearly non-existent healthcare. The federal government then expects the states to pick up the rest... like housing, transportation, food, etc. Section 8 housing is so overrun (with people that I won't talk about) that there is currently a three year waiting list in some areas. Transportation is often limited to regular buses - which is fine if the disabled person can get themselves to the bus stop. Food stamps are tricky with people receiving SSD as they can be disqualified because the disabled person does receive a little bit of money from the government. The threshold for the amount of food stamps varies from place to place. But even after the disabled person pays for their Medicare part B deduction, pharmacy plan deduction, co-pays for medications, payments for non-covered or OTC medications, payments for what the insurance doesn't cover... then there's utilities and the co-pay for the housing - if they are lucky enough to get it... Then everything from cleaning products and personal hygiene care... The food stamps are still often denied because of ass-backwards formulas that are based on the gross amount of income and not the income that is left over after required expenses.

The truly disabled in this country are treated horribly. We are supposed to take care of those in society who, by no fault of their own, are disabled. The system in place now is barely better than the executions the Nazi's used to do to eliminate the sick from society. In this country we barely give them anything, torturing them, and leaving them to often times die of neglect. This country has a moral imperative to clean up its act and care for those who really need it.

BarkingUnicorn:As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

Why do we need States, anyway?

I would assert that the state level is the worst level to concentrate political power. The political system in the US is set up to allow states to "compete" with each other in the exploitative capitalist sense but not to enact any kind of significant defenses (tariffs, denial of reciprocity, etc) against said "competition". The state level of government is, in turn, far enough removed from the local level that there is no inherent sense of social responsibility from the vaunted "representatives" to the people of their state.

Convenient they left out the other conditions, monetary income isn't the only condition. Often times Medicaid is slanted to children and women over men. I know in Arizona being a single childless male essentially means no Medicaid, the same is probably similar in the other states mentioned. Blame it on the state policy of preferential treatment to certain segments of the population.

MaudlinMutantMollusk:Better no one receive benefits than to give them to a single person who might not be as deserving

Better that tens of thousands of children should suffer (and maybe die) - unless the child isn't born yet. Because - sanctity of life and all. Of course, poor pregnant women also don't have medical coverage, and that can cause miscarriages. Of course, the Christian thing to do here is to charge those poor women with negligence if they miscarry.

BarkingUnicorn:As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

Very much this!

Might explain why the rightards want "states rights" so bad. Remember what it was like when some certain states declared themselves exempt from the Federal government?

/Oh, you know very damn well how much the republicans want to bring back slavery.

Shocking lack of information, browsing the requirements for Texas as an example:

Pregnant women and newborns with an income of up to 185 percent of the poverty line are eligible for full Medicaid coverage. Children aged 1 to 5 are eligible in families making up to 133 percent of the poverty line. Coverage for children aged 6 to 18 is limited to those at or below the poverty line. The groups together account for about two-thirds of Texas' full Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

MyRandomName:Convenient they left out the other conditions, monetary income isn't the only condition. Often times Medicaid is slanted to children and women over men. I know in Arizona being a single childless male essentially means no Medicaid, the same is probably similar in the other states mentioned. Blame it on the state policy of preferential treatment to certain segments of the population.

Until last year's cutbacks, Arizona was one of only five States that covered childless adults with Medicaid.

MyRandomName:Shocking lack of information, browsing the requirements for Texas as an example:

Pregnant women and newborns with an income of up to 185 percent of the poverty line are eligible for full Medicaid coverage. Children aged 1 to 5 are eligible in families making up to 133 percent of the poverty line. Coverage for children aged 6 to 18 is limited to those at or below the poverty line. The groups together account for about two-thirds of Texas' full Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Due to SCHIP and non-SCHIP programs on the state level, children are thankfully covered by much less onerous restrictions than are adults.

The adults in a 3 member family? If they are employed, they cannot make more than $6,8xx annually in my state, or they are ineligible for Medicaid. What do they do then? They seek out basic healthcare at free clinics or the ER. The ER bills are then passed on to the rest of us, but not before the medical debt destroys the remaining credit the parents have. Just another way the poor are screwed and kept poor.

A Dark Evil Omen:BarkingUnicorn: As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

Why do we need States, anyway?

I would assert that the state level is the worst level to concentrate political power. The political system in the US is set up to allow states to "compete" with each other in the exploitative capitalist sense but not to enact any kind of significant defenses (tariffs, denial of reciprocity, etc) against said "competition". The state level of government is, in turn, far enough removed from the local level that there is no inherent sense of social responsibility from the vaunted "representatives" to the people of their state.

I have a client. 22 year old woman with severe disabilities recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. Due to a quirk of medicaid/medicare/social security/DAC laws, she isn't eligible to get any kind of public health care for 2 years. She'll be dead by then. The only hospital that can help her won't take charity care. Luckily I JUST managed to wrangle her into her mom's private health care plan so she can get the radiation she needs... but had it been LITERALLY 4 days later, she would not have been eligible for this coverage. Nothing. So she'll get treatment, and her mom will probably pay over $8,000+ in co-pays this year alone.

And Romney thinks the poor are taken care of?

F*ck you, Romney. F*ck you, and everyone who would have let this girl die.

BarkingUnicorn:As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

Why do we need States, anyway?

We don't. Not since the Civil War or earlier. Frankly, I think the US needs a new Constitution... but that's just me...

fsbilly:We don't. Not since the Civil War or earlier. Frankly, I think the US needs a new Constitution... but that's just me...

States work as a decent safeguard against the insurrection of the masses towards the federal government. When riots break out, it's local people damaging local institutions, being put down by local officials. Any bad blood and resentment that results from said riot will be directed locally. The federal government is either a non-party or comes in to save the day. By contrast, when some students decide to protest for higher wages in China, they are put down by the national party. This ends up uniting all protest against the national state itself, which as history has shown, will eventually end up with the downfall of said federal government.

fsbilly:We don't. Not since the Civil War or earlier. Frankly, I think the US needs a new Constitution... but that's just me...

As long as we're stuck with Jesus freaks and the Greed is Good capitalists, any system of government we have is going to get ruined by them.I do think that the Congress, Senate, and even the Supreme Court should have a much larger amount of members to properly represent our population, but the two afforementioned groups are going to fark it up for Jesus and profit.

fsbilly:BarkingUnicorn: As bad as Congress is, I have more faith in the federal government than I have in the governments of the States. It seems that the smaller the governmental unit is, the easier it is for the petty, corrupt, and mean-spirited to overtake it. I'm glad to see power shift towards the feds and away from the States.

Why do we need States, anyway?

We don't. Not since the Civil War or earlier. Frankly, I think the US needs a new Constitution... but that's just me...

Well, we'd need a new name for this country if we eliminated the States.